Sulaiman Abu Ghayth pleaded not guilty in a New York federal court Friday to a charge of conspiracy to kill Americans. / AP

by Kevin Johnson and Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY

by Kevin Johnson and Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY

Sulaiman Abu Ghayth pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiring to kill Americans Friday in a brief appearance in a New York federal courtroom, but the mere presence of Osama bin Laden's son-in-law in the USA - a short distance from where the World Trade Center towers once stood - has revived an emotional debate over whether terror suspects should be tried in civilian court.

Republican lawmakers seized on the Justice Department's decision to bring the strident al-Qaeda spokesman to New York, saying he belonged in military custody at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

"We are disturbed by the administration's decision to bring ... a foreign member of al-Qaeda charged with conspiring to kill Americans â?? to New York for trial in federal court," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said in a joint statement.

"The Obama administration's lack of a wartime detention policy for foreign members of al-Qaeda, as well as its refusal to detain and interrogate these individuals at Guantanamo, makes our nation less safe," the lawmakers said. "We are at war with al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups, and America's detention policy must reflect that reality."

The White House on Friday defended the decision to try Ghayth on U.S. soil, and noted that similar decisions were made in the prosecutions of Faisal Shahzad, a U.S. citizen who unsuccessfully attempted to detonate a car bomb in Time Square in 2010 and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man who became known as the "underwear bomber" for his unsuccessful attempt to blowup a U.S.-bound flight on Christmas Day in 2009.

"There was broad consensus across the United States government -- the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, the Intelligence community agree - that the best way to protect our national security interest is to prosecute Abu Ghayth in an Article 3 court," said White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest.

Earnest said that Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York officials were not consulted before the decision was made to try Ghayth in New York.

Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said action reflected the administration's policy to "prosecute whenever feasible and in the national security interests of the United States.''

"The prosecution of Ghayth in federal court was the best option in this case because of the nature of (his) conduct and the charges available to prosecutors in federal court,'' Hornbuckle said.

Ghayth, who appeared in videos and issued proclamations immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, warning that the assaults would continue, represents the highest ranking operative set to face civilian trial in the USA since the administration abandoned a similar plan to prosecute 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2011.

At that time, Bloomberg and New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly raised questions about the costs of securing such a trial, while some Sept. 11 victims' relatives suggested the prosecution would be too painful to bear and could encourage new attacks.

Some of the same family members of 9/11 victims who opposed the New York trial of Mohammed said they opposed Ghayth's prosecution in civilian court."They are bringing him to New York because they couldn't bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed here,'' said Tim Sumner, co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America. "We shouldn't be giving an enemy in war constitutional rights. It's the wrong decision.''

After the charges against Ghayth were unsealed, Kelly issued a written statement: "While New York City must remain vigilant to continued terrorists threats against it," it said, "Abu Ghayth's apprehension and prosecution promises to close another chapter in al-Qaeda's notoriously violent history of killing Americans."

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said Friday that there is "no known specific threat against the city as a result of Abu Ghayth's presence here.''

Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., who opposed the administration's plan to prosecute Mohammed in civilian court, took a less adversarial position in Ghayth's case.

"While a federal court trial of Abu Ghayth in lower Manhattan would not present the same security issues as a trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I strongly believe as a matter of policy that military tribunals are the proper venue for enemy combatants,'' King said.

"If the Abu Ghayth trial does go forward in federal court it must not be used as a precedent for future enemy combatants who should be tried at Guantanamo."

A group representing 9/11 victims' families did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Human Rights First, which supports civilian prosecutions, said civilian courts have proved to be "efficient'' venues for trying terror cases.

Citing data the group obtained from the Justice Department through a Freedom of Information Act request, the group said 500 cases related to international terrorism have moved through the federal court system. Of those, 67 cases have involved "individuals captured overseas.''

By comparison, according to Human Rights First, military commissions have convicted seven people since Sept. 11.